What Does It Mean To Pull The Lever?

1225 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essay on The Golden Rule in Kant and Mill's Ethical Theories

In order to understand if one should pull the lever or not pull the lever depends on what type of philosopher one is. If one is like Mill, an objectivist, one would always pull the lever to save the most amount of people. This is due to Mill wanting the greatest good for the greatest number. Even if there is your significant other and two other people at risk he would save the two people always. Mill does not put reason into his decision, also looks strictly at the numbers. Nietzsche also has his own views on pulling the lever to save your significant other. According to Nichomachean ethics, everyone is not morally equivalent. If circumstances and situations matters then not everyone is equal. Nietzsche describes “picking a price,” meaning you can’t treat all interests the same. If you believe in Nichomachean ethics you would decide that your significant other is more important than some other number of strangers. But you would have to decide how many is okay to let die and let you significant other live. …show more content…

Kant’s triangle is based on duty, goodwill and categorical/hypothetical imperative. The hypothetical is in regards to actions set by one’s own wants to an end. So for Kant, if your significant other is tied down to the railroad track and the train is headed directly for them. Yet, if you pull the lever you could save your significant other but would kill 30 people. Would you pull the lever? How many people would be to many people to kill just to save the life of your significant other? According to Kant, if you can’t will others to do something, then you can’t do it either. Yet, he understands that humans are self-interested, which is why it is a logical contradiction. Kant believes people would pull the lever because he knows people are self-interested even though it is a logical contradiction. Although, Kantian ethics have nothing to do with feeling, everything is all about

Show More
Related

  • Comparing Three Ethical Paradigms

    985 Words  | 2 Pages

    "Ethical utilitarianism can most generally be described as the principle that states that the rightness or wrongness of action is determined by the goodness and badness of their consequences." (Utilitarianism EOP 9: 603.) Following this guide line the morally right decision to make is to rescue the group with five ...

    Read More

  • Comparing Kant And Gun Control

    826 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant’s idea of the hypothetical imperative is, the idea of what someone wants and how they should achieve that want or what they need to do in order to get what they want. The categorical imperative on the other hand is Kant's idea of what must be followed regardless of our own personal interests. When using both of these types of imperatives to analyse the gun control issue, the ideas must be viewed separately. A hypothetical imperative in this situation could be if a person wants to own a gun then they have to make the conscious decision to be responsible with that gun. The individual knows that in order not to be in trouble or have their freedoms taken away they have to exercise responsibility. The categorical imperative that could be applied to the situation is the idea that humans should not kill one another, this idea of not killing someone is an absolute law. The categorical imperatives determine whether something is right or something is wrong for instance killing someone is inherently wrong so Kant believes that no one should do that. This incorporates the idea of Goodwill meaning that down to everyone's fundamental core people are naturally good willed and will do the right thing. If they don't do right the right thing then they are justifying that everyone is allowed to kill and there is nothing wrong with that. Todd Calder Professor of philosophy for the University of Victoria, analyzes Kant’s ideas of imperatives and associates them with degrees of wrongness. Todd described that Kant implied, varying degrees of wrongness when he was thinking of his theories, the degree of wrongness is fitting the crime with punishment. Todd states, “Kant believes that one reason we should mete out punishment according the principle of retribution is that only then will punishment be in proportion to the inner wickedness of the criminal.”(Calder 232) This

    Read More

  • The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

    1055 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Kant, there are two types on imperatives, categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. The Categorical Imperative is based on relation and not by means, which hypothetical imperatives are based on. Kant describes them by stating, “When I conceive a hypothetical imperative in general, I do not know beforehand what it will contain- until its condition is give. But if I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains,” (88). Like before, categorical imperatives are absolutely moral in themselves, meaning they do not rely on a person’s desires or feelings. This is compared with hypothetical imperatives, which are obligations that have an end result of your action, which in turn results in your personal desires or thoughts. An example of a hypothetical imperative is, “I need to ea...

    Read More

  • Case Analysis: Case Study: If Looks Could Kill

    1269 Words  | 3 Pages

    When applying Kant’s theory one also has to take into account the two aspects in determining what exactly the right thing in any situation is. They include universality and respect for persons. Universality states that you must “act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”(Manias). Respect for person’s states that one must “act so that you treat humanity, weather in your own person or that of another; always as an end and never as a means only” (Manias). With this being said one must apply both of these to any option they are

    Read More

  • Mill’s Objection to Kant’s Moral Theory

    1356 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Meditations By Rene Descartes

    1003 Words  | 3 Pages

    Human beings are tempted. One is generally in a conflict between the realm or morality and immorality. At times, one disregards reason as the intended result was not what one wanted. One can conclude that reason is justified in situations where one expects to be treated morally and will treat others morally. Essentially, Kant expects all human beings to be able to reason. Reason is the justification to morality. One who reasons asserts the beliefs of morality. One can conclude that reason is absolute. Immorality is based on one’s personal desires. Reason cannot be coincided with immorality, since each party is not treated morally. Reason is universal, since each individual expects to be treated morally and will treat others morally. It is applicable to all entities. The Categorical Imperative establishes the ideal that one should act from maxims that are universalized. This ideal leads to the Formula of Humanity; individuals of morality seek to live under the law in which one’s self-worth is protected. One should act from maxims in which order is applicable to

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's Work On Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals?

    788 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant starts by explaining the three divisions of philosophy which are: physics, ethics, and logic. He clarifies that physics and ethics are a posteriori while logic is, a priori, but there is a third variable that interacts both which is also the foundation of morals. This is the categorical imperative or also known as the synthetic a priori. The categorical imperative or the moral law is the reason of individuals’ actions. Kant goes on to say “I should never except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Page14 (line 407-408)). This indicates that an individual should not do anything that is not their own laws or rules that cannot become universal to all individuals. Throughout the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines what categorical imperative is, but also its four distinct articulations.

    Read More

  • Categorical Imperatives Good Will Analysis

    798 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the previous mentioned dilemma, in order to save lives, murder must be committed. What ever that person decides to do will contradict the person’s desire to do a good deed. Despite his actions being pure his will to do good was not met, which is not a good thing. In the term of the law of universals, you must do act according to maxims that could become universal laws. You cannot commit murder, because you wouldn’t want murder to become a universal law. It would be immoral for everyone to go around murdering others; life would be worthless and invaluable. You also cannot save the live of those in need of saving. If everyone disregarded the need for saving others, such as fireman, police, paramedics, then life would also lose its value, because someone’s life is no longer worthy enough to be saved. Good will cannot be unconditionally good if it violates Kant’s own law of

    Read More

  • Analysis of Immanuel Kant´s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism vs. Kantianism

    1353 Words  | 3 Pages

    Immanuel Kant's deonotological ethical theory assesses if actions are moral based on the person's will or intention of acting. Kant's theory can be categorized as a deonotological because "actions are not assessed to be morally permissible on the basis of consequences they produce, but rather on the form of the agent's will in acting," (Dodds, Lecture 7) therefore his actions are based on duty and not consequential. Kantianism is based on three principles: maxims, willing, and the categorical imperative. Kant states that a maxim is a "general rule or principle which will explain what a person takes himself to be doing and the circumstances in which he takes himself to be doing it" (Feldman, 1999, 201). It is important that this principle be universalisable and that the maxim can be applied consistently to everyone that encounters similar situations, therefore willed as a universal law. The second aspect of Kant's theory is willing. This involves the agent consistently committing oneself to make an action occur. He states that, "In general, we can say that a person wills inconsistently if he wills that p be the case and he wills that q be the case and its impossible for p and q to be the case together" (Feldman, 1999, 203). T...

    Read More

  • Ethical Dilemmas In Max Brook's World War Z

    745 Words  | 2 Pages

    To make these decisions, we look to the possible outcomes of each and we make the choice of what we think as a person is the best thing to do for yourself or those around you, while also keeping in mind the consequences of said actions. However, if you were given the impossible task of choosing between the survival of your people against the undead, would you do some unthinkable things to create hope for a better tomorrow? Could you sacrifice the few to save the many? In Max Brook’s book World War Z, Paul Redeker is faced with the impossible responsibility of saving his people from total destruction of the undead onslaught.

    Read More

  • Comparing Person Of Interest And Minority Report

    475 Words  | 1 Pages

    However, drawing the line of who is able to be killed and who needs to be saved is a dangerous line to balance, that no one should have control

    Read More

  • Why Is Murder Justified Essay

    1333 Words  | 3 Pages

    An example would be three starving men aboard the boat. If all three men agreed on a lottery to decide which of the three of them would die to keep the other two men alive then I feel that is justifiable if the person chosen agreed to the terms. No one wants to die in that type situation, but if one person doesn’t sacrifice them self then the whole crew will die. When it comes to survival people will do what they need to do to survive. In my opinion, survival situations often bring out the worst in people. If an individual was faced with a survival situation willing to compromise his or her beliefs to further survive don’t you think they would? I’m not talking about unnecessary possessions, but rather human needs such as food and water that are essential to life. In the situation where the three men were stranded on a boat with their food supply cut off they came up with an alternative food source. “It’s easy enough for anyone to sit back in the comfort of one’s own home and wrestle with where he or she would draw the proverbial moral line, but if you were actually thrust in the middle of a dire emergency, what would it take for these morals to fall by the wayside?” (“No More Dependence,” 2011). For most people their morals would gradually diminish over time if the circumstances were dire

    Read More

  • Kant and Deontological Theory

    1240 Words  | 3 Pages

    While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).

    Read More

  • Business Ethics: Cost-Benefits Analysis

    921 Words  | 2 Pages

    A utilitarian approach to moral reasoning is also one where different options are weighed, although utilitarians are interested in minimising harm and maximising benefit. Importantly, utilitarians hold a universal perspective when reasoning, where they consider the impact upon all those who may be affected, who have interests of their own (Grace & Cohen 2013: 14-15).

    Read More

More about What Does It Mean To Pull The Lever?

Open Document